Navid Ahmad, Hajibandeh Shahin, Mohan Jayarama, Hajibandeh Shahab
General Surgery Registrar in the Department of General Surgery, Pilgrim Hospital, Boston, Lincolnshire.
Senior House Officer in the Department of General Surgery, Blackpool Victoria Hospital, Blackpool, Lancashire.
Br J Hosp Med (Lond). 2015 Dec;76(12):707-12. doi: 10.12968/hmed.2015.76.12.707.
Poor documentation in medical notes can affect the quality of the source document for coding which can lead to inaccurate coding. This study aimed to determine the accuracy of Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data for comorbidities and to establish whether better documentation in admission clerking proforma can improve the accuracy of codes for comorbidities in general surgical patients.
A clinical audit was conducted to assess the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of HES codes for comorbidities in general surgical patients before and after implementing better documentation in admission clerking proforma. The following comorbidities were included: hypertension, ischaemic heart disease, diabetes, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cerebrovascular disease, chronic kidney disease and hypercholesterolaemia. Medical notes were used as reference standard and a target standard of 98% was determined for the above measures.
Overall, on the initial audit, HES codes had substandard accuracy (90.5%, kappa = 0.599), sensitivity (47.71%, 95% confidence interval 38.05-57.49%) and negative predictive value (89.60%, 95% confidence interval 86.73-92.03%). HES codes for comorbidities were 100% specific with positive predictive value of 100%. Implementing better documentation in the admission clerking proforma improved the accuracy (99.67%, kappa = 0.985), sensitivity (97.4%, 95% confidence interval 90.93-99.68%) and negative predictive value (99.62%, 95% confidence interval 98.63-99.95%) significantly from the baseline (P<0.0001).
Although HES codes can confidently predict the actual presence of the comorbidities, they have substandard accuracy and ability to rule out the presence of the comorbidities. Better documentation in clerking proforma can improve the accuracy and 'ruling out' ability of the HES codes. This can be achieved by improving knowledge and accountability of clinicians about documenting comorbidities.
病历记录不完善会影响编码源文档的质量,进而导致编码不准确。本研究旨在确定医院病历统计(HES)数据中合并症的准确性,并确定入院记录表格中更好的记录是否能提高普通外科患者合并症编码的准确性。
进行一项临床审计,以评估在入院记录表格中实施更好的记录前后,HES编码对普通外科患者合并症的准确性、敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值和阴性预测值。纳入的合并症如下:高血压、缺血性心脏病、糖尿病、哮喘、慢性阻塞性肺疾病、脑血管疾病、慢性肾脏病和高胆固醇血症。以病历记录作为参考标准,并为上述指标确定了98%的目标标准。
总体而言,在初次审计中,HES编码的准确性(90.5%,kappa = 0.599)、敏感性(47.71%,95%置信区间38.05 - 57.49%)和阴性预测值(89.60%,95%置信区间86.73 - 92.03%)均未达标准。合并症的HES编码特异性为100%,阳性预测值为100%。在入院记录表格中实施更好的记录后,准确性(99.67%,kappa = 0.985)、敏感性(97.4%,95%置信区间90.93 - 99.68%)和阴性预测值(99.62%,95%置信区间98.63 - 99.95%)较基线水平显著提高(P<0.0001)。
虽然HES编码能够可靠地预测合并症的实际存在情况,但它们的准确性和排除合并症存在的能力未达标准。记录表格中更好的记录可以提高HES编码的准确性和“排除”能力。这可以通过提高临床医生对合并症记录的认识和责任来实现。